D&D 5E WotC's Jeremy Crawford Talks D&D Alignment Changes

Jeremy Crawford has spoken about changes to the way alignment will be referred to in future D&D books. It starts with a reminder that no rule in D&D dictates your alignment.

Data from D&D Beyond in June 2019​

(Note that in the transcript below, the questions in quotes were his own words but presumably refer to questions he's seen asked previously).

Friendly reminder: no rule in D&D mandates your character's alignment, and no class is restricted to certain alignments. You determine your character's moral compass. I see discussions that refer to such rules, yet they don't exist in 5th edition D&D.

Your character's alignment in D&D doesn't prescribe their behavior. Alignment describes inclinations. It's a roleplaying tool, like flaws, bonds, and ideals. If any of those tools don't serve your group's bliss, don't use them. The game's system doesn't rely on those tools.

D&D has general rules and exceptions to those rules. For example, you choose whatever alignment you want for your character at creation (general rule). There are a few magic items and other transformative effects that might affect a character's alignment (exceptions).

Want a benevolent green dragon in your D&D campaign or a sweet werewolf candlemaker? Do it. The rule in the Monster Manual is that the DM determines a monster's alignment. The DM plays that monster. The DM decides who that monster is in play.

Regarding a D&D monster's alignment, here's the general rule from the Monster Manual: "The alignment specified in a monster's stat block is the default. Feel free to depart from it and change a monster's alignment to suit the needs of your campaign."

"What about the Oathbreaker? It says you have to be evil." The Oathbreaker is a paladin subclass (not a class) designed for NPCs. If your DM lets you use it, you're already being experimental, so if you want to play a kindhearted Oathbreaker, follow your bliss!

"Why are player characters punished for changing their alignment?" There is no general system in 5th-edition D&D for changing your alignment and there are no punishments or rewards in the core rules for changing it. You can just change it. Older editions had such rules.

Even though the rules of 5th-edition D&D state that players and DMs determine alignment, the suggested alignments in our books have undeniably caused confusion. That's why future books will ditch such suggestions for player characters and reframe such things for the DM.

"What about the werewolf's curse of lycanthropy? It makes you evil like the werewolf." The DM determines the alignment of the werewolf. For example, the werewolf you face might be a sweetheart. The alignment in a stat block is a suggestion to the DM, nothing more.

"What about demons, devils, and angels in D&D? Their alignments can't change." They can change. The default story makes the mythological assumptions we expect, but the Monster Manual tells the DM to change any monster's alignment without hesitation to serve the campaign.

"You've reminded us that alignment is a suggestion. Does that mean you're not changing anything about D&D peoples after all?" We are working to remove racist tropes from D&D. Alignment is only one part of that work, and alignment will be treated differently in the future.

"Why are you telling us to ignore the alignment rules in D&D?" I'm not. I'm sharing what the alignment rules have been in the Player's Handbook & Monster Manual since 2014. We know that those rules are insufficient and have changes coming in future products.

 

[Chaosmancer]

This may be your cup of tea. We’re happy with the blanket description of evil in the PHB. No need to narrow it down at all.

Dude, you are missing the point.

You asked "well what about saying 'no evil characters' that is prodding players and that is allowed. How can we do that with no alignment?"


I responded with the very first thing that came to my mind, "what do you mean by evil"

That blanket description from the PHB? To combine them "LE creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. NE is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. CE creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. "


So, Taking what I want within the limits of a code or loyalty. Doing whatever I can get away with.

So, I play a character who wants wealth. He is in charge of the contracts for the party, let us say. He is willing to sign us on to do any job the DM gives us, for the right price. And he includes clauses and fees within the contracts to get as much money as he can. He thinks he can get away with grabbing some extra cash for the party loot? He does it.

Evil and Greedy to the core, but efficient. Works well with the party, and he isn't taking stupid risks that get the authorities chasing them, tries not to break contracts, since that dries up business...


Is this the type of character you are forbidding at your table? They are evil. Meet all the criteria, but would you even notice it if I didn't tell you they were evil instead of just Neutral Greedy?

Most DMs (in my experience) who say "no evil" are looking to prevent disruptive play, like betraying the party or killing everything for XP.

And, that was my point, you can still say that is unacceptable, and work with your players, but responding to the answer with "we are happy with how things are" seems to indicate that you really didn't care to hear our thoughts or answers to your question.

 

[TheSword]

Dude, you are missing the point.

You asked "well what about saying 'no evil characters' that is prodding players and that is allowed. How can we do that with no alignment?"


I responded with the very first thing that came to my mind, "what do you mean by evil"

That blanket description from the PHB? To combine them "LE creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. NE is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. CE creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. "


So, Taking what I want within the limits of a code or loyalty. Doing whatever I can get away with.

So, I play a character who wants wealth. He is in charge of the contracts for the party, let us say. He is willing to sign us on to do any job the DM gives us, for the right price. And he includes clauses and fees within the contracts to get as much money as he can. He thinks he can get away with grabbing some extra cash for the party loot? He does it.

Evil and Greedy to the core, but efficient. Works well with the party, and he isn't taking stupid risks that get the authorities chasing them, tries not to break contracts, since that dries up business...


Is this the type of character you are forbidding at your table? They are evil. Meet all the criteria, but would you even notice it if I didn't tell you they were evil instead of just Neutral Greedy?

Most DMs (in my experience) who say "no evil" are looking to prevent disruptive play, like betraying the party or killing everything for XP.

And, that was my point, you can still say that is unacceptable, and work with your players, but responding to the answer with "we are happy with how things are" seems to indicate that you really didn't care to hear our thoughts or answers to your question.

I think at this point @Chaosmancer you’re just trying to rehash every Alignment debate in one thread. I’m not interested in having another debate for your Entertainment.

Im not missing your point, I understand you don’t like the flexibility of the alignment system and it lets different tables make different judgements according to their preferred style. You are missing my point that this is ok and that I understand the alignment restrictions.

We don’t wany players like you describe at our table. Unless it’s a specifically evil game.

 

[Oofta]

Dude, you are missing the point.

You asked "well what about saying 'no evil characters' that is prodding players and that is allowed. How can we do that with no alignment?"


I responded with the very first thing that came to my mind, "what do you mean by evil"

That blanket description from the PHB? To combine them "LE creatures methodically take what they want, within the limits of a code of tradition, loyalty, or order. NE is the alignment of those who do whatever they can get away with, without compassion or qualms. CE creatures act with arbitrary violence, spurred by their greed, hatred, or bloodlust. "


So, Taking what I want within the limits of a code or loyalty. Doing whatever I can get away with.

So, I play a character who wants wealth. He is in charge of the contracts for the party, let us say. He is willing to sign us on to do any job the DM gives us, for the right price. And he includes clauses and fees within the contracts to get as much money as he can. He thinks he can get away with grabbing some extra cash for the party loot? He does it.

Evil and Greedy to the core, but efficient. Works well with the party, and he isn't taking stupid risks that get the authorities chasing them, tries not to break contracts, since that dries up business...


Is this the type of character you are forbidding at your table? They are evil. Meet all the criteria, but would you even notice it if I didn't tell you they were evil instead of just Neutral Greedy?

Most DMs (in my experience) who say "no evil" are looking to prevent disruptive play, like betraying the party or killing everything for XP.

And, that was my point, you can still say that is unacceptable, and work with your players, but responding to the answer with "we are happy with how things are" seems to indicate that you really didn't care to hear our thoughts or answers to your question.

Nothing you described about your "evil" PC would make them evil in my book. Just being greedy (while sharing equally with the party) and bargaining for a better deal or extra cash does not make them evil. Unless of course they're getting the extra cash by embezzling money from innocent old ladies and pensioners. Are they murdering someone in cold blood because they made a minor infraction against the code while saying "Sorry, nothing personal just business"? Purchasing slaves and abusing them because they're property and it's their right? Setting up a protection racket?

But once again you're picking out a couple of words without considering the other aspects of alignment and twisting them around to prove that alignment doesn't "work". This version of D&D doesn't go into technical detail about a lot of things. Definition of good and evil is just one of those things they leave to the DM and the group. They even specifically state:

These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.​

​

​

D&D is not a philosophical treatise on morality. It's a game. It's not their place to define good and evil and with 5E they don't try. I don't think they need to, alignment is just one aspect that can be used to describe someone if you find it helpful. I, and many others, do find it useful. You seem to want to twist it into something it's not to prove that it "doesn't work". If it doesn't for you, ignore it.

But, like @TheSword I don't see much point in just rehashing the same old same old. Have a good one.

 

[Aldarc]

I may write up a half-baked proposal to make Alignment in 5e more interesting and engaging for players in another thread, probably tying it in more closely with Inspiration.

 

[SkidAce]

I would say that a significant part of the contention rests in how this authority is often the sole discretion of the GM. It is the issue of when this "other" person you are describing is the GM who is imposing that sense of alignment on others. There have been a number of posters in the "We Say So" Corporation of GMs in favor of alignment who have described it, not so subtly, as a rod to police the morality and roleplaying of the PCs. The power imbalance in D&D effectively exacerbates the problem. It does seem that the most popular alignments conform to the long history of players protecting their PCs from GM autocratic powers. PCs are typically chaotic/neutral as a means to resist the tyrannical law of GM authority.

Should someone then claim that I am arguing here that PCs should be free to do whatever they want, I would point to the fact that there is a difference between arguing that kids should do whatever they want and being against corporal punishment of children. It would be fallacious to argue that an argument against the GM using alignment as a rod for policing PC roleplaying is tantamount to letting PCs act without consequences.

Therefore the problem "may" not be with alignment, but the DM's style/methods.

IME, every time I hear an alignment horror story, it's from a novice DM/group. And that experience burns them on alignment, therefore alignment sucks.

Just 2 cents...

 

[Chaosmancer]

I think at this point @Chaosmancer you’re just trying to rehash every Alignment debate in one thread. I’m not interested in having another debate for your Entertainment.

Im not missing your point, I understand you don’t like the flexibility of the alignment system and it lets different tables make different judgements according to their preferred style. You are missing my point that this is ok and that I understand the alignment restrictions.

We don’t wany players like you describe at our table. Unless it’s a specifically evil game.

I'm not trying to argue for my own entertainment. You asked a question, I started trying to work towards an answer.

If alignment is so flexible that it can make different judgments for their preferred style... then just saying No Evil obviously isn't enough anyways. Because Oofta right below you said the character I described wasn't evil.

So, if a player brought this character, with Neutral written on their sheet, you'd have to have a talk with them anyways about why you find their behavior unacceptable, and actually evil, and following under your rule of "no evil characters"

And if you need to do that anyways...

Nothing you described about your "evil" PC would make them evil in my book. Just being greedy (while sharing equally with the party) and bargaining for a better deal or extra cash does not make them evil. Unless of course they're getting the extra cash by embezzling money from innocent old ladies and pensioners. Are they murdering someone in cold blood because they made a minor infraction against the code while saying "Sorry, nothing personal just business"? Purchasing slaves and abusing them because they're property and it's their right? Setting up a protection racket?

But once again you're picking out a couple of words without considering the other aspects of alignment and twisting them around to prove that alignment doesn't "work". This version of D&D doesn't go into technical detail about a lot of things. Definition of good and evil is just one of those things they leave to the DM and the group. They even specifically state:

These brief summaries of the nine alignments describe the typical behavior of a creature with that alignment. Individuals might vary significantly from that typical behavior, and few people are perfectly and consistently faithful to the precepts of their alignment.


D&D is not a philosophical treatise on morality. It's a game. It's not their place to define good and evil and with 5E they don't try. I don't think they need to, alignment is just one aspect that can be used to describe someone if you find it helpful. I, and many others, do find it useful. You seem to want to twist it into something it's not to prove that it "doesn't work". If it doesn't for you, ignore it.

But, like @TheSword I don't see much point in just rehashing the same old same old. Have a good one.

Right, individuals might vary from their typical alignment.

Murdering someone? That gets the cops on you. Much better to legally have their wages garnished, or have the magistrate out them under a bond to work for you for free. All perfectly legal.

Embezzling? Sounds like another thing the cops might get on me about. What if I have these old ladies and Pensioners invest in the company? After all, we are going out and killing dangerous monsters, and as long as we do that, their town is safe. A little bit of extra coin, just to make sure our horses are well-shod and capable of riding back to town if it is in danger?

Is there a legal slave market? Then this would be the type of person to invest in labor, but if it is illegal, well, too much heat in that business.



And, if all of this is sounding, well, criminal. I'll remind people that Criminal is literally a background I can take. Including smuggler, which would be secretly transporting "goods" into and out of cities. Or I could be a charlatan, who would be running scams on people. And those backgrounds have "good" options. So, I could even play a greedy, slimey criminal who has "good" written on his character sheet.

 

[Aldarc]

Therefore the problem "may" not be with alignment, but the DM's style/methods.

IME, every time I hear an alignment horror story, it's from a novice DM/group. And that experience burns them on alignment, therefore alignment sucks.

Just 2 cents...

When I hear several times in this thread that veteran GMs use alignment as a rod to discipline players to roleplay properly, then I don't think that we can say that this is exclusively a novice DM/group problem. If people have repeated problems, whether novice or veteran alike, about alignment, then maybe we should rethink how alignment operates.

 

[SkidAce]

When I hear several times in this thread that veteran GMs use alignment as a rod to discipline players to roleplay properly, then I don't think that we can say that this is exclusively a novice DM/group problem. If people have repeated problems, whether novice or veteran alike, about alignment, then maybe we should rethink how alignment operates.

I hear you.

And since it is a consistent issue, your point is valid.

"I" just wonder sometimes WHY, because I hear people saying "change the wording to clarify" etc etc, and then I look at older descriptions which seem to clarify exactly in that manner and think "but they did".

Apparently for my d&d circles /acquaintances its one of those thing its hard to see the problem, because we don't see the problem.

 

[Oofta]

When I hear several times in this thread that veteran GMs use alignment as a rod to discipline players to roleplay properly, then I don't think that we can say that this is exclusively a novice DM/group problem. If people have repeated problems, whether novice or veteran alike, about alignment, then maybe we should rethink how alignment operates.

Does that really happen all that often any more? Are you bringing 20th century issues into the 21st?

Because I don't think "no evil" is too egregious a burden to bear. It also doesn't have much to do with alignment per se. I'm quite up front about it and have it as part of my intro before anyone even starts discussing PCs or what the campaign is going to be. Over the years I've lost exactly 1 player over it, not every game is going to work for every player.

But again, if it weren't for forums I wouldn't even know it was much of an issue and I've played with a lot of different groups.

 

[Aldarc]

Does that really happen all that often any more? Are you bringing 20th century issues into the 21st?

Because I don't think "no evil" is too egregious a burden to bear. It also doesn't have much to do with alignment per se. I'm quite up front about it and have it as part of my intro before anyone even starts discussing PCs or what the campaign is going to be. Over the years I've lost exactly 1 player over it, not every game is going to work for every player.

But again, if it weren't for forums I wouldn't even know it was much of an issue and I've played with a lot of different groups.

See this post.